air filtration system for animal transport vehicles filtration system for animal transport vehicles...
TRANSCRIPT
Air Filtration System for Animal Transport Vehicles
Project Team
Bernardo Predicala, Prairie Swine Centre Inc.
Lee Whittington, Prairie Swine Centre Inc.
Francis Pouliot / Jacquelin Labrecque, CDPQ
Henry Gauvreau, Warman Veterinary Services
Sylvain Messier, Demeter Services Vétérinaires Inc.
Brent Jones, South West Ontario Veterinary Services
Angus Chambers, JSR Genetics
Funding
Canadian Swine Health Board
Canadian Agricultural Adaptation Program
Project Overview
• Background
– Recognized risk of infection during transport
– Close the biosecurity gap, in conjunction with filtered barns
• Project goal
– Develop and evaluate an air filtration system for a transport trailer
to protect pigs from potential risk of infection
– Specific objectives:
1. Investigate options for different components of a trailer
filtration system
2. Design a practical air filtration system that can be applied
under Canadian conditions
3. Construct a prototype pig transport trailer with filtration
4. Evaluate effectiveness of the filtered-trailer system
2
Phase 1
• Literature review and survey of existing filtered
trailer/trucks designs
– Number of filtered truck designs surveyed: 2 from France, 2 from
Netherlands, 4 from U.S.
– European truck companies namely Berdex (Netherlands), Cuppers
(Netherlands), and Guitton (France) supply filtered trucks to different
swine production companies/organizations in Europe.
Project Activities
3
Existing filtered trailers
Organization Cap50 Porcs
(France)
Berdex
(Netherlands)
Hermitage-NGT PIC US SRTC-UWM
Trailer Length
40 to 45 ft (12 to
13.7 m)
45.4 ft (13.85 m) 53 ft (16 m) 32 ft (9.75 m) 20 ft (6.1 m)
Number of Decks 1 1,2,3,4 1 1 1
Capacity per deck 214 (50-lb pigs) 170 (50-lb pigs) 93 (50-lb pigs)
Fan Type Axial High-Pressure Fan Axial Axial Negative Air Machine
Ventilation Rate per
deck
Low (oxygen is
being monitored)
High,
Max – 4,500 CFM
Low,
Max – 500 CFM
Maximum Static
Pressure
1.4 inch water no setting 3 inch water
Filter Type HEPA HEPA + UV lights HEPA DOP HEPA, DOP
Air Conditioning Yes (Refrigeration
unit)
Yes No No Yes (3 4,000 W-units)
Power Requirement
~ 20,000 W
(Refrigeration unit)
5,500 W 10,000 W
Cost
$124K 3-deck
$150K 4-deck
$30K $40K parts
$20K labor, misc
Travel Time
(maximum)
24 hours 36 hours, rest every 5
hours
16 hours
Floor Bedding No Yes Yes
4
PIC, U.S.A.: (Photos courtesy of Bob Thompson)
Existing filtered trailers
5
Existing filtered trailers
6
Europe
Berdex (Netherlands) Cuppers (France)
Existing filtered trailers
7
Existing filtered trailers
8
Existing filtered trailers
9
Existing filtered trailers
10
Existing trailer – cost estimate
SRTC-UW Trailer: 20’ x 7’ x 7’ gooseneck; capacity: 200 10-lb pigs, 20 400-lb pigs
11
Existing trailer – cost estimate
Equipment cost Share (%)
Ventilation $6,000 15%
Filter $900 (HEPA)
$450 (DOP)
2%
A/C & Heating system $6,000 15%
Power $20,000
(10kW generator)
50%
Insulation $7,000 18%
Total $40,000
SRTC-UW Trailer: 20’ x 7’ x 7’ gooseneck; capacity: 200 10-lb pigs, 20 400-lb pigs
Trailer capital and labour costs (~$20,000) and miscellaneous
items (~$7,000) not included.
12
• Ventilation
Minimum ventilation per animal (summer and winter conditions)
Leakage and unintended inlets; filtered air distribution
Heat and moisture production in enclosed space
Air flow resistance; power requirement
• System performance monitoring – filter, air quality
• Emergency measures - in case of equipment failure
• Feeding and watering system
• Cleaning and disinfection
• Cost
Design challenges
13
• For the above options = 24 to 96 potential trailer configurations!
• Evaluation criteria (to select the option to include in the design):
- cost, power requirement, robustness, resulting trailer environment (air quality,
thermal conditions).
Trailer Components - options
Temperature control Filtration Fan Air Distribution
Ventilation HEPA Axial Poly bag duct
Air Conditioned MERV16 Centrifugal PVC pipe
Combination MERV14 Cross ventilation
Antimicrobial [None]
14
Construction and testing
• Design of filtration system - selected options
• Environment control – non-airconditioned,
mechanically-ventilated
• Filter – MERV 16 filters
• Air mover – axial fan
• Air distribution – no air diffuser
Phase 2
15
• Schematic diagram of trailer filtration system retrofit
Phase 2
Air inlets
Air outlets
Fan
Filter
16
Trailer retrofit:
Phase 2
17
Phase 2
18
Phase 2
19
Trailer test – bacteriophage φX174 aerosol
Phase 2
20
Bag (antimicrobial fabric) filter:
Phase 2
21
Trailer testing:
Phase 2
22
Trailer testing – MERV 16 filter
Results
23
Trailer testing – antimicrobial fabric filter
Results
24
• Information available on design components for a trailer filtration system
• Antimicrobial filters (MERV 16, fabric filter) can capture bioaerosols in the airstream and prevent entry to animal compartment
• Specific design challenges were identified:
Summary
25
• Ventilation rate requirements - no standard
– Size of fans, motors
• Significant airflow restriction – high HP
• Target filter efficiency – infective dose
• Power supply – capacity, quality
• Leakage – controlled airflow, wind effect
• Keep things simple – controls, monitors
• Cost
Challenges
26
Emergency Biocontainment System for Swine Facilities to Control Transmissible Airborne
Diseases
Project Team
Bernardo Predicala, Prairie Swine Centre Inc.
Lee Whittington, Prairie Swine Centre Inc.
Francis Pouliot / Jacquelin Labrecque, CDPQ
Sylvain Messier, Demeter Services Vétérinaires Inc.
Henry Gauvreau, Warman Veterinary Services
Brent Jones, South West Ontario Veterinary Services
Funding
Canadian Swine Health Board
Canadian Agricultural Adaptation Program
Project Overview
• Develop alternatives to current means of dealing with airborne disease outbreaks
• Project goal:
– Investigate potential measures for emergency biocontainment of a
barn during an outbreak
• Specific objectives:
1. Compile measures and strategies that can potentially be applied for
isolating a barn during an airborne disease outbreak
2. Evaluate effectiveness of selected measures in pilot scale
3. Develop best management practices and communication/
coordination protocols to be implemented during emergency
biocontainment
28
Exhaust bag-type filter
Photo courtesy: Brent Jones
29
Filtered enclosure
Photo source: Baumgartner Environics Inc.
30
Dust reduction curtain
31
Trailer with filter walls
32
Other exhaust filter options
33
Assessment criteria
a. time required for installation - within 1 or 2 days after an outbreak is detected
b. operational and maintenance requirements - minimal technical expertise and manpower needed for set-up and operation
c. portability and adaptability for installation - adaptable to different existing barn configurations
d. robustness and reliability of performance - must function reliably over biocontainment period
e. affordability - total cost must not offset the benefits of biocontainment; reusable measures
34
Assessment results Option Rank Comments
Bag-type filter at exhaust Dust control curtain at exhaust
1
2
Dust removal before filter – pre-filter (easily installation), upwind directed pre-filter and filter(gravitational settling), Filter- non-collapsible, ability to fit to different sized exhaust, easy air tight attachments (wet suit zippers, Velcro) , mechanical support Reduce pressure drop - fan inside the filtration system Maintenance- detection - measure dust level, pressure drop , Combination with dust control curtain Air outlet attachment to curtain – horizontal plane at ground level, modified wind hood, pipe Effectiveness – virus dissemination, snow accumulation
Trailer fitted with mechanical filters
3 Constraint - Installation issue, long hoses, complex, number of trailers
Filter roll assembly at exhaust
4 Constraint - installation, maintenance, incomplete seal, higher filter surface area (cost, pressure drop)
Flexible filter housing (green house style)
5 Constraint – installation, snow and water at bottom of the cover , snow load in the covered area
35
Pilot-scale test set-up
36
Test set-up
37
Test set-up
Experimental set-up located at IRDA.
Fan
HEPA filter Aerosol
injection port
Upstream sampling port Downstream sampling port
HEPA filter
Test section
38
Aerosol measurement
39
Measures tested
Photo of the tested measures:
(a) Noveko antimicrobial filter; (b) Noveko prefilter; and (c) dust reduction curtain.
(a) (b) (c)
40
Test results
Measures / configuration tested Air flow rate
(m3 h-1)
P across test
section (in.
H2O)
Reduction in
aerosolized
particles
(%)
NF (10 layers) with pre-filter 782 0.28 9
NF(20 layers) with pre-filter 782 0.38 32
NF (10 layers) with pre-filter 1156 >0.45 49
DRC1 (4 layers) - attached 1156 0.15 14
DRC1 (2 layers) - attached 1156 0.08 11
DRC1 (2 layers) - attached with NF (20 layers) 782 0.38 26
NF (20 layers) no pre-filter 782 0.35 31
NF (15 layers) with pre-filter 782 0.3 34
NF (15 layers) with pre-filter 1156 >0.45 63
NF (15 layers) with DRC2 (4 layers) - detached 782 0.33 31
NF (15 layers) with DRC2 (4 layers) - detached 1156 >0.45 67
NF - Noveko filter; DRC – dust reduction curtain; P – pressure drop 41
• Full-scale testing of selected measures
• Incorporate into Best Management Practices and
Emergency Response Protocol documents
• Assemble a prototype emergency trailer
Next steps
42
Questions?
43